CHEE FEI MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER

CHEE FEI MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER

Section 104C(1) is a constitutionally valid, free‑standing enforcement power; the statutory scheme in Part IX and the Management Scheme pursue legitimate aims and satisfy the prescribed‑by‑law and proportionality requirements; the applicants’ challenges (infringement of fundamental freedoms, selective motive,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEE FEI MING v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Pun Lin Fa (substituted for Chee Fei Ming); Applicant: Hung Shui Fung; 1st Respondent: Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Justice; Interested Party: Lands Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Case Number
HCAL73/2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional) / Judgment (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; HCAL 73/2013 and HCAL 110/2013 dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Public Land Regulation, Proportionality, Legitimate Expectation, Discrimination, Statutory Delegation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Human Rights Statutory Enforcement Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Public Land Regulation +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pun Lin Fa (substituted for Chee Fei Ming)

Applicant

Hung Shui Fung

Applicant

Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene

1st Respondent

Secretary for Justice

2nd Respondent

Lands Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional) / Judgment (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 104C(1) and the enforcement actions infringe Article 27 Basic Law and Articles 16 and 17 Bill of Rights
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement was illegitimately motivated by complaints generated by opponents (selective/targeted enforcement)
  3. 3 Whether operational policy discriminates indirectly against women and disabled persons

Ratio Decidendi

Section 104C(1) is a constitutionally valid, free‑standing enforcement power; the statutory scheme in Part IX and the Management Scheme pursue legitimate aims and satisfy the prescribed‑by‑law and proportionality requirements; the applicants’ challenges (infringement of fundamental freedoms, selective motive, discrimination and legitimate expectation) fail; leave is refused and applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; HCAL 73/2013 and HCAL 110/2013 dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused and applications dismissed
  • Order nisi that the applicants pay the costs of the 1st and 2nd respondents and the Interested Party, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed